4 ms·

The author says that we, as consumers, need to "engage" advertisers because they have power (to do what?), and because we all have a stake in each other's succe

The author says that we, as consumers, need to "engage" advertisers because they have power (to do what?), and because we all have a stake in each other's success. He offers this explanation: The only way engagement will work is through tools that are ours, and we control: tools that give us scale — like a handshake gives us scale. What engages us with the Washington Post should also engage us with Verge and Huffpo. What engages us with Mercedes should also engage us with a Ford dealer or a shoe store. Does anyone know what he is talking about here? I re-read the article 2 or 3 times and skimmed the linked article in an attempt to figure out what part scale plays in a handshake. If anything, a handshake is anti-scale because its a personal gesture that you can only do with one other person at a time. But the author says that engagement should scale across all verticals (automakers, shoe stores) and all brands (Huffington Post, Verge). Seems like an inherent contradiction. Am I parsing his meaning/terminology incorrectly? Also, why do a plurality of smart people involved in the ad industry keep pushing for us, the consumers, to "help marketers think past abuse and coercion"? Advertisers have had plenty of time to think and reflect upon their business model. They have chosen to disrespect us, violate our privacy, and chase short-term profits at the expense of long-term customer satisfaction. Now they are receiving their just desserts because people hate they way they have been treated. The sites that host these ads are also guilty by proxy because they know exactly what they are doing. What is there to talk about/negotiate in this situation?

forgottenpass 11y ago
What is there to talk about/negotiate in this situation? Nothing; we're being conned. They know what they want, they know nobody else wants that, so they disingenuously play to human nature. By stating that they should be engaged with directly, they attempt to make blocking seem like an unreasonable rejection of working with them. They have no interest in cooperating, so it's just manipulative. It's the same exact hustle we've seen with whistleblowers (and protesters) time and time again for ages. Some blowhard says that they're for reform, and support the concept of whistleblowing in general. But in this one specific case, the whistle-blowing just wasn't done right, and there are certainly more-effective routes to that reform, with less collaterally damage that should have been used instead. Nah, that's just someone that exists to make sure the status quo doesn't change. Sorta related, about the NSA/ATT relationship: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7325100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7325100

forgottenpass 11y ago

What is there to talk about/negotiate in this situation? Nothing; we're being conned. They know what they want, they know nobody else wants that, so they disingenuously play to human nature. By stating that they should be engaged with directly, they attempt to make blocking seem like an unreasonable rejection of working with them. They have no interest in cooperating, so it's just manipulative. It's the same exact hustle we've seen with whistleblowers (and protesters) time and time again for ages. Some blowhard says that they're for reform, and support the concept of whistleblowing in general. But in this one specific case, the whistle-blowing just wasn't done right, and there are certainly more-effective routes to that reform, with less collaterally damage that should have been used instead. Nah, that's just someone that exists to make sure the status quo doesn't change. Sorta related, about the NSA/ATT relationship: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7325100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7325100